If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Who wins ?

So far the guy in the middle is winning with significant help from the guy on the left. I don't think the guy on the right has a clue as to what kind of hornet's nest he would be walking into. Then again, maybe he does and couldn't care less.

Originally posted by merlin I cannot understand why the popular vote is not used for the election of your president.

The Electoral College nominally confers more influence to individual smaller states. If it were done by popular vote alone, only the major population centers would matter. Our Senate and House of Representatives are also differentially "weighted."

It's true, when it comes to voting, we don't much care what anybody else thinks. We presume they couldn't begin to understand, as we ourselves don't, entirely. We also ascribe a innate intelligence to the collective "will of the people." It has always served us well. We are relentlessly self-reliant in this regard; it's entirely a private matter - an intensely personal "right" we exercise.

A British newspaper recently arranged for letters from its subscribers to be sent to some uncommitted voters in Ohio, I believe it was. Kindly stated, responses were at best, rude. "Buzz off and butt OUT! This is NOT your affair...."

We cycle back and forth between varying degrees of colonialism and isolationism, but "outside" interests are always a consideration: we acknowledge that what we do does not occur in a vacuum. When folks start bombing us, it's a problem, but we are not living in fear here; neither are we intimidated by it. We'll not be abandoning Israel or Occidentalism anytime soon, thank you.

Yes, we are arrogant, ignorant, greedy, self-centered, ... all that stuff. But, see also DeTocqueville's "Democracy in America" for the bigger picture....

Heck, I say that we really haven't run roughshod ENOUGH on the UN, given how much CORRUPTION exists there.

There is a political axiom that goes as follows: Whenever something or somebody continuously makes decisions that dont follow common sense, expect to find corruption, insanity or ignorance.

In short, corruption is the ONLY thing that will, for any length of time, manage to curcumvent the application of common-sense, cause-and-effect relationships. And with as many long-standing, interminable nonsensical decisions coming from the UN (ie, putting KNOWN OFFENDERS on the Human Rights committee and refusing to do anything to rectify the situation, among other things), it's quite likely that the thing is now rotten to the core. Somebody has to take out the trash every now and then!!

As bad as Bush might be, he's done a few things that nobody in the last 50 years has been willing or able to:

-actually STAND UP to a dictator, instead of coddling and privately negotiating with/paying off them

-actually point out the insanities of the UN, and actually EMBARASS the UN to at least make pretense of investigating things like the Oil for Food program

- actually MAKE AN ACTUAL, QUANTIFIABLE EFFORT to reform intelligence agencies, to stem the tide of deterioration that's been going on there since the Carter administration.

The list continues past that... but really, I'm finally estatic to have someone there who is willing to stand up for a principle. Misguided sometimes, definitely. But not afraid of a fight, if he believes it's worthy. And that's a disappointingly rare quality in this day of "focus group politics"...

Originally posted by Zilch The Electoral College nominally confers more influence to individual smaller states. If it were done by popular vote alone, only the major population centers would matter.

I don't get that Zilch. I appreciate that weighting can give a greater say to the smaller states when electing the houses but surely when voting for just one guy, the popular vote would ensure that everyone in the country has a say rather than just those living in Florida?

I suspect the reason the rest of the world takes a different view (77% pro Kerry) is that we do not get to watch the US media.

Originally posted by merlin I appreciate that weighting can give a greater say to the smaller states when electing the houses but surely when voting for just one guy, the popular vote would ensure that everyone in the country has a say rather than just those living in Florida?

Actually, it's BOTH the President and Vice President.

Remember that we are a Union of States, and the autonomy of each of them, while limited, is real. The power vested in the Executive is substantial; each State gets its say in electing.

We have the debate ourselves again and again. Folks here think it's stupid, too, largely because they don't understand it. It is a Constitutional mandate, and will NOT be easily changed. Florida doesn't want to be ruled by New York, and New York CERTAINLY doesn't want to be ruled by California.

Electoral College:

"An assembly elected by the voters to perform the formal duty of electing the President and the Vice President of the United States: the electors of each State, equal in number to its members in Congress, are expected to cast their votes for the candidates selected by the popular vote in their State."

That's from the handy-dandy $3.99 toolbar Webster's here....

Our Congress is similarly contituted. In the Senate, each State has an equal say. In the House, it's by population. Both gotta agree. The Electoral College gives election of the Executive an analogous spin....

While WE may be idiots, our founding fathers apparently weren't. Think "Chechnya," for example....